> Very nice! :) This is exactly the kind of scene I was talking about. In
> fact I think I had planned to make a similar animation (water putting
> off a fire) for my own particle system, but never got around to doing
> it.

Finally! We've had the same idea but *I* made it first! ;-)

> Back to your animation. For some reason, once the water hits the ball, I
> think it looks more like ice particles than like liquid water. I think
> that is because water doesn't bounce nearly that much, but rather just
> flow along the surface to get "out of the way". Try to open your nearest
> tab and watch the water as it hits the sink - it doesn't bounce into a
> lot of water drops, it just slides along the surface...

Hm, yeah, might be right. I figured that the water drops from a higher
altitude, but then again, rain drops don't splash into tiny particles that
fly hundreds of meters up again... :-) I'll experiment a little more until I
can come up with a good-looking solution.

> As you say, the fire could be improved, but it still looks quite fine,
> and the smoke looks really good! Overall a cool example animation. :)

Thanks! The smoke is actually only made of 8 big particles with rather low
media-settings, and the fire has this 3D-gamish style, which I like for
simple animations, especially for particle-beginners: it makes the algorithm
a little easier to visualize.

Regards,
Tim

-- 
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>

Post a reply to this message

Now thats really good.

-- 
Rick

Kitty5 NewMedia http://Kitty5.com
POV-Ray News & Resources http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : (+44) 0845 1083740 - ICQ : 15776037

PGP Public Key : http://pgp.kitty5.com

Post a reply to this message

[SNIP]
> Back to your animation. For some reason, once the water hits the ball, I
> think it looks more like ice particles than like liquid water. I think
> that is because water doesn't bounce nearly that much, but rather just
> flow along the surface to get "out of the way".
[SNIP]

So, how about this? Water is less "splashy" now, but maybe it's still too
much. I'll have to run a few more tests tomorrow to get it correct. I'll try
one without any "splash" at all, but I'll have to greatly modify the macro
that creates the splashing effect (as it places new, smaller particles and
their velocities based on the original particle, hence, when doing a less
splashy effect, I need a different calculation for the velocities).

Regards,
Tim

-- 
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'water.mpg' (397 KB)

> Now thats really good.

Thank you very much! :-)

-- 
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>

Post a reply to this message

Tim Nikias v2.0 wrote:
> So, how about this? Water is less "splashy" now,
> but maybe it's still too much.

To be honest, I can't see any difference... :(
Except that the water spreads a bit wider on the ground, but that was
not the issue.

I just tried the sink test I described and the water does indeed just
slide off the surface without bouncing up at all. See attached sketch...

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com **updated Mar 9**
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'water_splash.jpg' (6 KB)

Preview of image 'water_splash.jpg'

> To be honest, I can't see any difference... :(
> Except that the water spreads a bit wider on the ground, but that was
> not the issue.
>
> I just tried the sink test I described and the water does indeed just
> slide off the surface without bouncing up at all. See attached sketch...

Allright, here's the latest. The particles now divide into several smaller
ones, where the upward direction is limited to a certain degree.
Additionally, droplets don't rebounce but just slide along surfaces. This
looks pretty convincing to me, and I think this is what I'll stick to. Now
on to another over-nighter. :-)

Thanks for the comments!

Regards,
Tim

-- 
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'water_2.mpg' (383 KB)

This looks much better. :)

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com **updated Mar 9**
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

Tim Nikias v2.0 wrote:
>>To be honest, I can't see any difference... :(
>>Except that the water spreads a bit wider on the ground, but that was
>>not the issue.
>>
>>I just tried the sink test I described and the water does indeed just
>>slide off the surface without bouncing up at all. See attached sketch...
> 
> 
> Allright, here's the latest. The particles now divide into several smaller
> ones, where the upward direction is limited to a certain degree.
> Additionally, droplets don't rebounce but just slide along surfaces. This
> looks pretty convincing to me, and I think this is what I'll stick to. Now
> on to another over-nighter. :-)
> 
> Thanks for the comments!
> 
> Regards,
> Tim
> 

i know, picky, pickie

grass surface does not appear flat, shouldn't it puddle up a bit?


as an aside, i wish i could even guess as to how to approach even trying 
to do something like this

stephen

Post a reply to this message

> i know, picky, pickie

That's how it goes when you're asking for comments. :-)

> grass surface does not appear flat, shouldn't it puddle up a bit?

It would, eventually, but the velocity of the particles and the heightfield
on which they move isn't exactly the kind of terrain which forms puddles.
That aside, the particles don't use cohesion forces and thus wouldn't form
puddles or stick together like actual water-droplets would. But that'd be
over the top for a simple example anyway.

> as an aside, i wish i could even guess as to how to approach even trying
> to do something like this

It's all practice and experience. Once you've became accustomed with some
different animation techniques and formulae for
animation/simulation/calculation, it just moves on from there.

-- 
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>

Post a reply to this message

Tim Nikias v2.0 wrote:
>>i know, picky, pickie
> 
> 
> That's how it goes when you're asking for comments. :-)
> 
> 
>>grass surface does not appear flat, shouldn't it puddle up a bit?
> 
> 
> It would, eventually, but the velocity of the particles and the heightfield
> on which they move isn't exactly the kind of terrain which forms puddles.
> That aside, the particles don't use cohesion forces and thus wouldn't form
> puddles or stick together like actual water-droplets would. But that'd be
> over the top for a simple example anyway.
> 
> 
simple examples have a way of becoming large oaks

could you change the characteristics of the water particle on the fly, 
once below say 0.25 height of stone ?

very large :-) for next bit

get your kids to play with a hose and an up turned bucket on your lawn 
and observe.

pick a sunny day
(not for about 3 months in uk, apart from which no lawn, no kids :-)

>>as an aside, i wish i could even guess as to how to approach even trying
>>to do something like this
> 
> 
> It's all practice and experience. Once you've became accustomed with some
> different animation techniques and formulae for
> animation/simulation/calculation, it just moves on from there.
> 

statement of opinion from a lapsed/used to be 'good at maths' person, 
intended as a complement

stephen

Post a reply to this message